When AI governance decisions must be taken, signed, and defended
Artificial Intelligence governance reaches a critical threshold when decisions can no longer be prepared, coordinated, or delegated through committees, policies, or advisory processes.At this point, governance becomes personal.
Patrick Upmann operates precisely at this threshold — when AI governance decisions must be taken, documented, and defended under audit, regulatory scrutiny, incident review, or liability exposure.
At this point, governance must hold as a named decision under pressure — not as intent, strategy, or interpretation.
Decision authority, not advisory support
Patrick Upmann’s role as Decision Authority is fundamentally different from advisory, consulting, or facilitation models.
This work is not about:
- presenting options without ownership
- facilitating consensus without escalation power
- drafting policies without enforceable authority
- stabilising narratives after accountability has already crystallised
Instead, it is about establishing explicit decision authority where governance would otherwise fail under scrutiny.
Patrick is engaged when:
- decisions must be signed, not discussed
- accountability must be named, not diffused
- escalation paths must function, not depend on individuals
- governance evidence must already exist — before it is requested
Operating as a time-boxed authority
The Decision Authority role is always explicit, limited, and time-boxed.
Patrick Upmann does not replace boards or executives.
He is mandated to restore decision clarity and defensibility, and to transition authority back to the organisation once governance is stabilised.
Typical characteristics of this role include:
- board-mandated authority with defined scope
- cross-functional reach across Legal, Risk, Compliance, Technology, and Operations
- decision frameworks that are admissible under audit and regulatory review
- documented transition of authority back to internal ownership
This role exists to prevent governance breakdown, not to manage it after the fact.
Where this role is applied
The Decision Authority role is applied in situations such as:
- imminent or ongoing audits or supervisory reviews
- regulatory inquiries requiring named accountability
- AI-related incidents or near-misses with escalation risk
- governance deadlocks at executive or board level
- environments where personal and organisational liability exposure is emerging
In these contexts, governance cannot be optimised incrementally.
It must be decided, anchored, and defensible immediately.
Authority grounded in system architecture
Patrick Upmann’s decision authority is grounded in his role as:
- Architect of the AI Governance Operating System (AIGN OS)
- Inventor of the ASGR Index for systemic governance readiness
- Author of SSRN-listed scientific publications forming prior art in AI governance
This system architecture underpins his mandates — but the mandate itself is not a framework exercise.
It is the application of governance as operational infrastructure under real-world pressure.
A governing principle
Patrick Upmann’s work as Decision Authority follows a single, uncompromising principle:
If governance needs to be reconstructed after the fact, it never existed.
The purpose of this role is to ensure that AI governance is:
- present before it is tested
- explicit before accountability becomes personal
- defensible when scrutiny begins
Initiating a mandate
If AI governance decisions in your organisation can no longer be postponed, delegated, or absorbed by existing structures, a mandate can be initiated directly at board or executive level.
This role exists for moments when decision authority is no longer optional.